alternatehistory.com

On August 1st 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm II ordered the Chief of Staff of the Imperial Army, General von Moltke, to stand on the defensive in the west and shift the German main effort to the eastern front. von Moltke replied this was a logistical impossiblity, but the chief of the military rail transport General von Staab later wrote a book in which he proved conclusively that four of the seven armies earmarked for the Schlieffen plan could have been deployed on the eastern front by August 15th.
So, suppose the Kaiser had known this and forced von Moltke to comply or resign?

I'm not going to draw up a detailed alternate timeline, but there is one issue in particular which interests me;

With Germany not invading Belgium, its most likely that Britain would not have entered the war, at least not in 1914 (German troops threatening the Channel ports was a determining issue as far as I've understood).

So suppose now it's spring 1916 - Britain is still neutral, as is Italy (not so eager to join the entente without Britain), half a dozen great French offensives against Alsace Lorraine have smashed themselves to pieces against the German trenches, and Russia is reeling on the brink of total defeat, it's western front collapsing and the Turks swarming all over the Caucaus.

Desperate to land a telling blow before Germany can knock France's only ally out of the war, the French decide to outflank the German defences in Alsace by invading neutral Belgium and march on the Ruhr.

What would be the reaction of Britain in this situation?

1) Declare war on France in accordance with the British guarntee of Belgian neutrality?
2) Blockade France until the French pull back from Belgium.
3) Trade embargo (but no blockade)
4) Vociferous protests only
5) Tacit acceptance, polite condemnations only

What do you think?
Top